Small, medium and large, that might do it, maybe with X-Large and XX-Large for the American market. Works for pants and plenty of fast moving consumer goods. Cu

Small, medium and large, that might do it, maybe with X-Large and XX-Large for the American market. Works for pants and plenty of fast moving consumer goods. Cuts out having to have detailed specs, plus it is not exactly as if a computer is something that has to be sized to a person's anatomy. The same could be applied to screen sizes, instead of clumsy acronyms like 'CGA', 'SVGA' etc. I am actually a traditionalist, for me, bytes matter, as to megabytes and gigabytes, not forgetting terabytes. I like the consistency of Base 2, Base 10 for disk sizes always makes me feel short changed. But I am on HN, I cut my teeth on 6502 and I know my two times table. But my uncle, with his top of the range iPhone whatever? He takes lots of photos and has a huge iTunes collection, for him 'large' might be the thing that informs his choice. My auntie? She doesn't do music but she plays those Angry Birds games, 'medium' will do nicely for her. My nephew? Small should do him fine (he always loses his phone so never has much on it). Of course people in-between 'developer' and 'techno-phobic' might need a little guidance in choosing size, but right now these megabyte and gigabyte things are just plain confusing. 'Best for photos - medium' might be the strap line to sell the product. Of course, like clothing sizes could be on a per-brand basis. Much like how you can be a 'Large' in Nike jacket sizes, you could be an 'X-Large' in some equivalent Italian leisure-sports-wear brand. In the world of gadgets you could therefore be 'Large' in Apple device-land and 'X-Large' in Samsung gadget-land. Even bicycles that were once measured in distance from bottom-bracket to top-tube are now simply sold as 'Small/Medium/Large'. This simple sizing could make things a lot simpler for all involved, side-stepping this Base 2/10 nonsense.